[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#250202: Alternate proposal

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > +	  In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > +	  <tt>source</tt> to the <prgn>debian/rules</prgn> file. This
> > +	  target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply
> > +	  patches, generate files, and generally prepare the unpacked
> > +	  source package to modification. Running <prgn>debian/rules
> > +	  binary</prgn> after <prgn>debian/rules source</prgn>
> > +	  <em>must not</em> erase any changes, and it must also not
> > +	  fail.
> What has happened to the concerns that were mentioned at the beginning
> of the discussion to not make many packages instantly buggy?

Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy,
since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at
least; if the wording isn't clear enough, I may need to fix that). If
you don't have that target, you don't have to comply with the must. The
'source' target is a 'should', so a package that does not currently have
this target isn't buggy at all.

> (Apart from that fact I agree with the proposal, just for the record)

Is that a formal second?

(if so, please sign the mail)

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond

Reply to: